AUbicycles wrote:With the hospital admission around Betsy Andreui, I am not certain what the deal is there and why he wont confess. The doctors/hospital have patient confidentiality so wouldn't think there are any issues there. That said, am wondering about the specific implications on an admission to this - is it because of testimony that Armstrong gave and consequences as it is past the statue of limitations.

It may be because of the very large sums of money his doctors' employer received from lance's endowment fund in and around the time of their depositions on the matter in 2006.

Another great report by 4 Corners. It further highlighted how reckless and malicious lance is, he corrupted and brought down so many, and still no remorse. Here's hoping he starts from square one again (i.e. no money).

I just googled Trail Gumby's book above from the ACT library service and have just bagsed it! borrowing for free is always better than paying for it. Just in case any other canberra folk want to bags it after me.

I'm just amazed at the trail of destruction LA and his attorneys caused, he even destroyed Greg Lemond's business. This is going to cause a massive shakeup if the Americans do actually have the evidence that they suggest they have and can prove that the UCI was complicit in the whole debacle.

Great program, definitely needed more time to go into everything further.I am in no doubt LA doped in 2009 & 2010, as proved in his tests & explained very well by M Ashenden, but as was mentioned he cannot admit that, as there would be serious consequences... A 5 year statute of limitations I think was mentioned. So wait for the whole truth to come out in 2015.

And Phil Anderson... My gosh... If you're going to look that foolish, just admit it man... Because everyone now believes you to have been there for the deal anyway, so may as well tell the truth.

And IMO the Skins owner & Fahey (WADA boss) have it spot on... Take a broom through the UCI as they are corrupt (IMO), or if not corrupt then hopelessly incompetent, in that they wanted to protect the image of the sport, rather than clean it up & put there fingers in their ears.. "lalalalalalalalala..." when any whiff of positive tests came across their desks. 2 men have run it for the last 22 years... That alone says it all to me...Not sure what or who the answer is, but something needs to be done, starting at the top...

AUbicycles wrote:With the hospital admission around Betsy Andreui, I am not certain what the deal is there and why he wont confess. The doctors/hospital have patient confidentiality so wouldn't think there are any issues there. That said, am wondering about the specific implications on an admission to this - is it because of testimony that Armstrong gave and consequences as it is past the statue of limitations.

My guess is this about not wanting to drop that woman from Oakley in it. She's clearly lied for Pharmstrong under oath at that same deposition where he said the hospital room incident never happened.

Funny thing about the kickback to win races. I just finished the Robbie McEwan book, and he makes numerous references to offering people from other teams cash to ride for him on the day.

When they did the previous show on 4 Corners back in about October, Phil Anderson was featured in the promos where he had his bad memory loss. I remember thinking how bad he looked and how it would create a storm but then I'm sure it never made it into the show when it actually went to air, then lo and behold he popped up in all his glory last night (and I bet he wished he hadn't)!

QC - "were you there the night they murdered the victim"? Defendant - "ummmm, I'm not sure. Hmmm, that's a pretty serious thing, but I can't recall it. No, no, it doesn't ring a bell".

takeitasread wrote:When they did the previous show on 4 Corners back in about October, Phil Anderson was featured in the promos where he had his bad memory loss. I remember thinking how bad he looked and how it would create a storm but then I'm sure it never made it into the show when it actually went to air, then lo and behold he popped up in all his glory last night (and I bet he wished he hadn't)!

QC - "were you there the night they murdered the victim"? Defendant - "ummmm, I'm not sure. Hmmm, that's a pretty serious thing, but I can't recall it. No, no, it doesn't ring a bell".

Except Phil also looked like he was trying to hide a bloody knife behind his back. Very sad.

AUbicycles wrote:With the hospital admission around Betsy Andreui, I am not certain what the deal is there and why he wont confess. The doctors/hospital have patient confidentiality so wouldn't think there are any issues there. That said, am wondering about the specific implications on an admission to this - is it because of testimony that Armstrong gave and consequences as it is past the statue of limitations.

i am unsure of the legal situation around the hospital incident but a confession here, while impossible to prove, pretty much confirms that lance gave himself cancer.

if i get killed while out on my bike i dont want a 'memorial ride' by random punters i have never met.

alex wrote:i am unsure of the legal situation around the hospital incident but a confession here, while impossible to prove, pretty much confirms that lance gave himself cancer.

I would disagree that this can be an assumption. Certainly can be speculated and was suggested by Betsy Andreui in the interview and her subsequent reaction after the left the ward when Lance Armstrong said that.

BrisVegas wrote:I didn't know the impact Lance had on Greg Lemond until I watched this. Disgraceful.

All that Greg LeMond dsd was respond honestly to a fairly innocuous question by an interviewer and then refused to back down from it. Armstrong Inc and supporters then went after him to change his mind.

David Walsh (Author of LA Confidential etc) implies that LeMond lost around US$30m from his Trek relationship as a fairly direct result of this.

One hopes that Trek is suffers some grief from their self-serving part in this. (Though to be fair, their response was just plain business sense and nothing personal I guess.)

That's the challenge for sponsors and advertisers. Lance was a winning machine and the value increased when LiveStrong started.

Do these (big) advertisers / sponsors actually lose out or have they gained much more anyway (and that they may lose as a result). While Trek is very much associated with Armstrong (and George Bush for that matter), they would generally not be privy to doping (with exceptions) and would obviously go far to support star riders and drop connections with anyone challenging this.

On the one side, it is just business and the approach understandable (again, excluding where there may have been specific knowledge).

On the other, additional influence or pressure from Armstrong and Co. has been exerted beyond what would have been usual (ie. to drop associates, dealers, contacts) which can be viewed critically by outsiders and potential customer but will it have an actual effect on sales?

It is interesting when you think that the power that one person gained that they can influence business in this way. Remember the story of Lance Armstrong intending to buy the Tour de France?

BrisVegas wrote:I didn't know the impact Lance had on Greg Lemond until I watched this. Disgraceful.

All that Greg LeMond dsd was respond honestly to a fairly innocuous question by an interviewer and then refused to back down from it. Armstrong Inc and supporters then went after him to change his mind.

David Walsh (Author of LA Confidential etc) implies that LeMond lost around US$30m from his Trek relationship as a fairly direct result of this.

One hopes that Trek is suffers some grief from their self-serving part in this. (Though to be fair, their response was just plain business sense and nothing personal I guess.)

The guys at Trek were (are?) buddies with Lance and they would of done what he asked business sense or not. They should suffer just as lance should, personally I will never buy a product related to them.

AUbicycles wrote:On the one side, it is just business and the approach understandable (again, excluding where there may have been specific knowledge).

If it's just business, call it business not sport. Don't expect taxpayer's money and subsidies to provide for training and development of your athletes, cyclists, footballers etc.,. Maybe even bring on HECS fees for institute of sports interns.

AUbicycles wrote:It is interesting when you think that the power that one person gained that they can influence business in this way. Remember the story of Lance Armstrong intending to buy the Tour de France?

I don't want to diminish or excuse the evil in LA, but...

Eddie Obeid is an example of the power and influence that one person can gain, and his net worth is probably multiples of LA's. Right now we have the the allegations of corruption and game-fixing being rife in European Soccer. Just last year, Rugby League was prosecuting an attempted betting fix. Back in 2005, Steven Levitt (Freakonomics) documented how match-fixing worked in that apparently noble art of Sumo. No sport is immune from being tainted by cheats.

Sadly, it's too untrue that cheats never prosper and the challenge is to find sports administrators that will lessen theodds of the cheats winning.

If LA is exploiting statue of limitations in certain USA jurisdictions, maybe they need to look at making some exemptions to the SOL for frauds and conspiracies of the magnitude LA has engaged in. Murder doesn't have a SOL - why should a grand fraud ?

Cheers

WombatK

Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us -Jerry Garcia

MIKE ASHENDEN: There's little doubt in my mind that it was to protect the reputation of the sport. They weren't interested in catching dopers, they were interested in avoiding the scandal with comes with catching dopers.

JAIMIE FULLER: If we can change the leadership in the UCI, if we can ensure that we have cultural change within the UCI and within cycling, cycling's got a brilliant future.

Mike Ashenden is one of the world's foremost blood doping authorities who has worked with cycling's governing body, the UCI, as an independent expert.He parted ways with the UCI a long time before, furious, and stated on L.A."He's been a professional liar, for 15 years" and was on L.A. case, the reason why he left.The key to whole issue, is Mike Ashenden will be the witness that puts L.A. inside. IMO.

Lone Rider- I rode on the long, dark road... before I danced under the lights.

Who is online

About the Australian Cycling Forums

The largest cycling discussion forum in Australia for all things bike; from new riders to seasoned bike nuts, the Australian Cycling Forums are a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.